150 construed individually (Kienhues, et al., 2008). Within the context of this study and based on the assertion about changing epistemological beliefs, it may be possible to identify such changes in the practices of teachers from traditional towards reformation.
4.5 THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE TEACHER DUE TO CURRICULUM
151 Against the backdrop of teacher’s essential role in implementing reforms in curriculum, this study attempted to understand the acceptance and/or adjustment or non-acceptance of the transformed South African Life Sciences curriculum by interpreting teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and their practice of IPW in the classroom. In doing so, it also provided insight into the change factors or challenges that could have influenced or affected their decisions in the enactment of IPW.
4.5.2 Classroom teaching practices: Traditional versus Reform Science Teaching
In order to understand changes in the Life Sciences classroom with respect to the implementation of investigations, from the traditional practice to the expected transformed practice, it is necessary to understand the characteristics of each. In this regard, Table 4.2 provides a description of the differences between traditional practices and reformed practices, for the different aspects of a lesson. This has however, been limited to lessons involving IPW in order to make it relevant for this study.
Table 4.2: Differences between traditional and reformed classroom practices with respect to science investigations
Aspects of lesson Traditional practice Reformed practice
1. General design of lesson
Prior knowledge is not explicitly considered. Prior knowledge of learners is considered in order to create dissonance so that
meaningful learning and understanding may occur.
Exploration is in the form of verification of
concrete experience of formal presentation. Learner exploration precedes formal presentation.
Concepts are taught in isolation rather than as
the inter-relatedness of scientific thinking. Subject matter concepts and processes are at the heart of the lesson and the lesson promotes conceptual understanding.
Knowledge is generally accessed individually
by learners. Learners engage as members of a learning
community.
2. Teacher knowledge
Teacher knowledge is important to transmit
content knowledge. Teacher senses the potential significance of ideas as they occur in the lesson and shows eagerness to pursue learners’ thoughts for pursuance of conceptual understanding.
Content knowledge usually transmitted as isolated facts without connection to other disciplines and the real world.
Connection to other disciplines and the real world is created for conceptual
understanding.
152
3. Teacher activities
Teacher follows a narrow, prescribed path of
reasoning, to the exclusion of alternatives. A variety of ideas are allowed resulting in rigorous debate and the challenging of ideas.
Low cognitive level questions requiring short
responses is common. Teacher poses a variety of cognitive levels of questions which trigger divergent modes of thinking.
Lack of opportunities created for learners to
pose questions. Learners are encouraged to pose questions
and challenge the ideas posed by the teacher, text books and peers.
Teacher generally provides the question, hypothesis, and detailed procedure for the investigation in the form of a worksheet.
Learners are encouraged to generate conjectures, hypotheses, alternative solution strategies and ways of interpreting results.
Activities are directed by the teacher – verbally or through worksheets and / or textbooks.
Teacher acts as a facilitator and resource person rather than a director of activities.
This also implies that s/he is a good listener.
Teachers are the most active participants with learners being relegated to passive recipients of instructions and directions to carry out structured experiment.
Active participation of learners is
encouraged and valued. Active participation implies agenda-setting as well as “minds- on” and “hands-on” participation.
4. Learner activities
A single method of experimentation
promoted. Encourages learners to seek and value
alternative modes of investigation.
Direction of lesson is predicted in advance by the teacher and requires learners to follow a set of instructions and/or sequence as set down by the teacher or text book. The solutions are also ‘known in advance’.
The focus and direction of the lesson is often determined by ideas originating with learners, their comments and their
questions.
Teacher generally provides the question, hypothesis, and detailed procedure for the investigation.
Learners generate hypotheses, predictions and devise ways of testing these.
Teacher provides the method of data collection, the format of recording data, and the manner in which the data will be analysed and presented.
Learners devise and use a variety of ways of collecting, recording, analysing data and presenting these.
It is more important for learners to be involved in the physical ‘doing’ of the investigation.
Learners engage in critical assessment of investigation procedure.
The intensity of following pre-determined procedures do not allow learners to actively think about how what they do affects the next steps in their investigations.
Learners engage in re-examining or re- assessing their thinking. They engage in metacognition through reflection.
Communication is generally limited to the presentation and pooling of results at the end of the investigation.
Learners are involved in the communication of their ideas to others using a variety of means and media in order to reflect on their contribution to the richness of the lesson.
They are allowed to raise questions with their peers as well as with the teacher.
Teacher does most of the talking. There is a high proportion of learner talk and a significant amount of it occurs between and among learners.
Respecting what others have to say is more about listening politely. The teacher is the authority figure.
Encourages and allows every member of the learning community to present and express their ideas and opinions without fear of censure or ridicule.
Adapted from Piburn and Sawada (2000)
Changes in classroom practices are dependent on the changes in teachers’ knowledge and beliefs (Kubitskey & Fishman, 2005; Van Driel et al., 2001). Furthermore, teachers’
153 knowledge and beliefs are regarded as the main links between Professional Development (PD) and teaching practice (Borko, 2004; Kubitskey & Fishman, 2005). Moreover, teachers’
knowledge and beliefs can be changed through professional development and/or classroom practice (Kubitskey & Fishman, 2005; Putman & Borko, 1996).
Ni and Guzdial (2008) proposed a ‘teacher change model’ consisting of four categories or factors that may influence teachers’ decisions to adopt reforms. They referred to these factors as ‘adoption factors’ (p.3). These adoption factors included the following: (1) Teachers’
knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about curriculum; (2) Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about learners; (3) Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about self (the teacher);
(4) Quality of intervention (PD) activities such as workshops, conferences and other teacher education opportunities. While Ni and Guzdial (2008) incorporate such aspects as learning goals, content coverage, preparation time and contextual factors into category (1) that is, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about curriculum, for the purpose of this study, these aspects have been separated. In addition, these categories were modified to read as, ‘Teachers’
knowledge and beliefs………’ Attitude has been left out because within the context of this study ‘teachers’ beliefs’ incorporates attitudes. Hence, analysis involved data with respect to:
(1) Knowledge and beliefs about the Life Sciences Curriculum; (2) Knowledge and beliefs about subject matter knowledge; (3) Knowledge and beliefs about general pedagogical knowledge; (4) Knowledge and beliefs about pedagogical content knowledge; (5) Knowledge and beliefs about pedagogical context knowledge; (6) Knowledge and beliefs about self (teacher). The data with respect to the abovementioned six categories was analysed and compared with the data from classroom observation to determine whether the participant teachers practiced IPW using transformed strategies, partially transformed strategies or traditional strategies.